1) McChrystal, in fact, is a brave and heroic figure deserving our respect. But among friends and with a mole in his midst, he still himself deprecated the commander in chief. His staff took care of the VP, the national security team, and most of the diplomatic personnel involved in Afghanistan. All came close to conduct unbecoming of officers: “In private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama’s top people on the diplomatic side.” And here in McChrystal’s own words: “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal says with a laugh. “Who’s that?” And the general creates a climate in which his staff reduces his superiors to fools: “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f…ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.” That’s right out of George McClellan’s frequent caricatures of Lincoln. What was more worrisome than the general’s own remarks was the ease in which his subordinates thought they could quite graphically trash their superiors — to a reporter, no less.

2) Is it smart to be in Paris within a mile of any creep from Rolling Stone? How dumb is that? Such tag-along groupie folk exist to trash the military, and only get close to officers by being disingenuous in a manner that most teenagers would not fall for — much less a four-star general supposedly adept in insurgency trickery. What was the motivation? An accident? Ego? An effort to send a shot across the diplomats’ bow? Worry that the war is going south and a cry from the heart to get attention?

3) Who wasn’t trashed? We get jokes about meeting with a French diplomat — at a time when we want the French to stay in the war. Why should we know that McChrystal voted for Obama? To this day, speculations about Petraeus’s political ambitions are always predicated on queries like: “But what party would he run with?” How did that come up? Do generals now self-identify as left or right — and if so, for what purposes other than careerist advancement?

4) If McChrystal were not fired, then what would have happened if a dissident colonel or major gave the same sort of trash interview about McChrystal himself, or if such an officer’s subordinate captains and majors dished the same dirt on McChrystal to the press that his team did about their president? McChrystal has a reputation for not tolerating any untoward conduct. Yet within hours he let into his innermost circle a creepy sort, and then all poured their hearts out to him. To whom wouldn’t they have talked trash?

5) The story was vulgar. We are introduced to Gen. McChrystal in the piece as he flips off his polite his chief of staff (e.g., “The dinner comes with the position, sir,” says his chief of staff, Col. Charlie Flynn. McChrystal turns sharply in his chair. “Hey, Charlie,” he asks, “Does this come with the position?”). The point is not that officers talk tough, but that generals talk that way with outsiders in the room, and among lower-ranking officers.

And Then There Is The Politics of All This

1) Petraeus was a wise choice. He will face far less criticism from the media and politicians than during 2007-8 (e.g., there will be no more “General Betray Us” ads or “suspension of disbelief” ridicule, or someone like an Obama at the confirmation hearing sermonizing nonstop on why Petraeus’s efforts will fail), because his success this time will reflect well on Obama rather than George Bush. Consider the further irony that Obama is suddenly surging with Petraeus. Not long ago he was declaring that just such a strategy and commander were doomed to failure in Iraq (see below). Of course, then he was running to take office on what was wrong rather than trying to stay in office on what’s right.

2) I smiled at Obama’s reference today to “common purpose.” True, but again not long ago at a critical juncture in Iraq, Obama himself, entirely for partisan purposes and on the campaign trail, had no interest in the common purpose of military success in Iraq. Here is Obama in 2007 on the surge (at a time when we desperately needed “common purpose”):

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Or: “I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work. We went through two weeks of hearings on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; experts from across the spectrum–military and civilian, conservative and liberal–expressed great skepticism about it. My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.” Or: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked.”

3) McChrystal’s crudities, of course, were mostly on target. The Afghanistan policy and those who carry it out do not inspire confidence: Deadlines only empower the Taliban to wait us out. (Remember that George Bush refused to set them for that very reason.) Obama did not meet with McChrystal for months. It was foolish to pick a public fight with our Karzai ally. It was sillier to turn loose mega-egos like Holbrooke and Eikenberry with the expectation they would be team players. (NB: this reminds us that we can see that one of the reasons that the surge worked was a particular tone established at the top by Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Crocker is also a much underestimated figure, whose professionalism and competence will increasingly be appreciated, in contrast to the current diplomatic team in Afghanistan. We owe him a great deal; he was not an advocate of invading Iraq, and yet when asked to serve did his best to carry out a policy that saved lives and a country itself. He was a far better candidate for a Nobel Prize than Obama will ever be.)

4) Conservatives err by citing all sorts of legitimate reasons for McChrystal to have expressed frustration: sorry — all are irrelevant in terms of his dismissal. We all agree with almost all of them. But they are not the issue. It remains judgment, the chain of command, civilian/military relations, and the very wisdom of palling around with a reckless loose-cannon reporter in Paris. He had to go, pronto.

5) The politics of McChrystal were weird, at least as I observed them. For weeks conservatives and many in the military complained of his restrictive rules of engagement — to a degree far more so than during the Anbar Awakening under Petraeus. One cannot be faulting McChrystal for having a COIN strategy that endangers troops in the field, and then regret that Obama is, with good cause, relieving someone who was the avatar of that strategy. So what is it? (I suspect that troops in the field will be split over the decision to remove McChrystal, with some perhaps relieved.)

6) The Left is in a trap in Afghanistan of its own making. From 2007-8, Obama et al. created a false narrative of Afghanistan as the good war and Iraq the bad, predicated not on facts, but only on casualty rates, public opinion, and their own desire to strut national security toughness without ever making gut-check decisions. Afghanistan was quiet in 2007 and so seen as stable—so why not adopt a “let me at ‘em” attitude? Iraq was scary, so why not trash it as Bush’s lost and unnecessary war? But Afghanistan has no tradition of secular literacy, Iraq a little—and no ports, terrible terrain, no oil or cash to work with, a nuclear Pakistan next door, and so on and on. Some of us cringed when we saw that Obama was taking the tougher challenge and boasting of his warrior cred, and trashing a war that was winnable, and indeed in the very process of being won. Nemesis again for the nth time with this president. (Cf. Guantanamo suddenly no longer the gulag, or renditions and Predators no longer terror).

7) Obama got our attention off BP for a day, and a bad day it was, as the spill regushed this morning in greater volume, so to speak. His speech today was fine—if one ignores the usual serial invocation of “I”, “me,” and “my” that we’ve become accustomed to, as the president tries to radiate authority with first person pronouns rather than common sense reality.

8) The tragedy of all this? There was a way for McChrystal to have expressed his frustration that would have done himself and the nation a lot of good: write a letter warning of the problems, then when it was not acted upon, formally resign and express the reasons for such a departure. McChrystal was apparently at a point anyway where something was going to blow up, so why not have gone out with dignity and with a lesson for the nation, rather than being dry gulched by Rolling Stone and playing right into the hands of those like Jones, Eikenberry, and Holbrooke?

9) David Petraeus had earned a much needed respite with the CentCom command. Yet here we go again calling on his talents, after his recent brush with cancer and his fainting spell. The odds are against Petraeus this time; but I remain hopeful for this reason: if Petraeus cannot win Afghanistan, then it is not winnable for Americans. And I tend to think it is very winnable, if Obama cuts out the withdrawal talk, keeps his differences with Karzai private, gives Petraeus free rein, and brings in someone like Crocker on the diplomatic side. Right now we must have only the best. A General Mattis at CentCom would do wonders. A Crocker/Petraeus/Matthis team would be like finally getting Grant/Sherman in control. (Yes, I know, we have a verbose Edward Everett, not an insightful A. Lincoln in charge.)

Petraeus is our modern Belisarius, which both encourages and scares me because such talents do everything for us and are, in the end, treated very poorly for their efforts. I hope the final chapter with Petraeus ends better than Justinian’s treatment of the one general who gave him victory when defeat was certain.

Click here to view the 132 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

132 Comments, 69 Threads

1.
Cornhead

1. A Rolling Stone reporter was embedded in an Iraq War unit. His book was “Generation Kill.”

One of the commanders – of the same unit – wrote a book later. It was title, “One Bullet Away.”

I’ve read both of them.

If it weren’t for the pictures, the reader can’t begin to believe this is the same unit in the same war.

Crude and crass doesn’t begin to describe “Generation Kill.”

2. Obama moves the attention away from his non-existent leadership on the BP leak.

3. When POTUS said the General used “poor judgment” I thought he was describing Obama’s action and inaction on every single important topic he’s dealt with since 1-20-09.

Hastings had his story written before he ever met McChrystal. He needed to meet the general to give the story authenticity.

Obama used the story to get Petraeus out of Centcom. Too many terrorists were being killed by Predators. The Iranians were watching the sky and getting nervous. So were Nasrallah and his merry men. Obama dislikes the idea of storing US smart bombs in Israel.

VDH. I have a question. Historically speaking (not philosophically) is it better for a president to insist that the rules of etiquette (dress, precedence, language, decorum, obsequiousness) be followed or should he insist on wise counsel. Has a ruler ever been successful if his troops are rowdy, uncultured, disrespectful louts who make jokes about their leader?

The McChrystal Affair is unique because both Obama and McChrystal were faced with an identical problem. Obama was faced with a general who publicly questioned his judgment on the pages of Rolling Stone and Hastings reports that McChrystal was faced with troops who publicly questioned his judgment! But Obama and McChrystal handled the problem in totally different manners.

As we know Obama ordered MsChrystal to the Oval Office. Next, Obama talked for 20 minutes. Then, he fired McChrystal. There were no reporters present.

Hastings reports that McChrystal went to the troops and sought out their questions and explained the reasoning behind his orders, then asked for comments and answered those as well. Does command involve more than giving orders and demanding obedience?

This is ultimate psych-ops. McChrystal set it up, in confidence with Petraeus.

Stuck in Paris because of the volcano, McChrystal could have left the city, but used the journalist (with the sweet irony of writing for Rolling Stone) to hang with the guys for a couple of days (yeaaaa…).

Then, back in Afaghanistan, McChrystal parades the journalist around again, this time for more than just a few days. Petraeus was aware of this. After it all, McChrystal signs off on the article.

Time will tell what their objectives are, but both have had full control of how it has played out so far.

Ludicrous. Why would a well-respected general choose to be fired from his command in order to get out of it when all he had to do was step down for any number of reasons that would have some credibility and perhaps even garner some sympathy? McChrystal may still be in the military, but his career is now at a dead end. I somehow doubt that he wanted that.

the timing is also curious (considering a number of other events the past three weeks).
Obama was careful with his wording today: he accepted McChrystal’s resignation from this command. No retirement. No resignation from the Army. After all, NATO, Karzai, and Pakistan made it clear they wanted McChrystal to stay. My hope is back into Special Ops, off the grid.

I keep wishing the Iraqis would invite Ryan Crocker, private citizen, to mediate a new governing coalition. So little news coverage about the deadlock in Iraq, which is only one of the dots that need connecting.

Add Jim Jones to Holbrooke and Eikenberry as serial leakers who need to go.

Good article, sir. I think it summarizes McChrystal’s situation very well.

This incident makes me wonder whether the DoD has ever studied the military’s relationship with its civilian masters – say, in the same way it’s studied subjects like logistics, counterinsurgency, and urban warfare. From George Washington to McChrystal, it seems as if most of our generals’ relationships with the President and Congress have been problematic at best, counterproductive at worst. The generals who are good at politics seem to be crap on the battlefield and vice versa. Very seldom do we have someone like Grant who can get the job done while keeping the civilian leadership more or less satisfied. Has the military, institutionally, learned anything at all since then about the care and feeding of Presidents? Do they teach general officers (or officers in general) anything more useful than “like it or not, we have to do what the civilians tell us?” Or is still just a crap-shoot of personalities and politics every time we go to war?

Why include George Washington as a general with bad relations to civilians? He was a fine general and a fine politician, and outstanding president. “First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

Because he DID have a piss-poor relationship with his nominal superiors in the Continental Congress. Long story short, he effectively BECAME the Continental government by patently ignoring almost everything the Congress said while doing things that were certainly counter to their orders. To be fair, many times it was a matter of resources and there is no way he could have carried them out (like their order to invade the Green Mountain Republic with the battered army he inherited after Long Island and the New York campaign), but there were plenty of other times he effectively acted as a law unto himself without the Congress’ approval.

Washington and some of the Continental Congress disagreed on policy. Some wanted him replaced while others did not actually want to defeat the British but rather get some concessions from the King. Case in point there were tons of supplies stored in warehouses while our soldiers froze and starved at Valley Forge.

George Washington was Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, and he didn’t report to any President, because there wasn’t one (he became the first, of course, years later).

Yeah, Mr. Literal, I know there was no President when Washington was fighting the Revolutionary War. The civilian pain in HIS ass was the Continental Congress. He frequently despaired of winning the war because of their political game-playing and tightness with a buck.

The guy’s a fraud. A poseur. A punk. He never should have been in that position to begin with, after what he and BushCo did to Pat Tilmann – what an absolute disgrace. He has no code. No honor. No sense of duty and no respect for the brave men and women he pledged to lead. In fact, I think he wanted to quit but just didn’t have the guts. Afghanistan turned out to be reallllly haaaaarrrrddd. So, for the benefit of all the good patriotic people of Alaska, he quit. Death by commander in chief. Frankly, we’re better off without this pantywasit cum pundit on the battlefield. He belongs in a Fox News studio with all the other bimbos and chickenhawks. Good luck, McQuitter. Enjoy sucking off the government tit for another few decades.

I gather your nom de plume is sardonic.The “liberals”, “Democrats”, “elite” from universities, establishment Media with handmaidens in both political parties, coined hyphenated American. To, by Orwellian turn of phrase, pit citizen against citizen. By hyphenating the proud identity AMERICAN WITH A CAPITAL A, there is an AUTOMATIC breaking the society into tribes. And social antagonism of tribe against tribe. Contrived antagonisms easily manipulated to a genuine civil,if for the present still cold, war. Not particularly original, in line with historical precedent of nation underminers, destroyers presenting themselves as “freedom fighters”. We’ve seen this ploy again and again during the past half century since these “liberals-Democrats” entered onto center stage of the political theater, WORLD- WIDE. WORLD-WIDE for the past half century. And THEY say there is NO Conspiracy !

You want to watch calling liberals cowards. The current crop of conservatives, with some shining exceptions, tend to be light on military honors. We’re conservative because we’re right, not because we’re brave. Liberals, on the other hand, are frequently very brave, while being completely wrong.

Yes, I am a civilian . . . now. Just like you . . . now. Now, I am against late-term abortions as a practice rather than an emergency. The fact that you support them is a clear indicator of your moral inadequacy. It indicts your judgment and renders your views irrelevant because you obviously support the wholesale slaughter of innocents. For shame. For shame. Only when we erase such callous and self-centered beliefs from the American culture will we once again rise to be the shining city on a hill that our Lord and . . . oops . . . former president Ronald Reagan envisioned. I suggest you set aside your visits to PJM and get thee to a house of worship and pray for forgiveness. The babies can’t pray, because they’re dead a the hands of people like you.

The guy’s a fraud. A poseur. A punk. He never should have been in that position to begin with, …what an absolute disgrace. He has no code. No honor. No sense of duty and no respect for the brave men and women he pledged to lead. In fact, I think he wanted to quit but just didn’t have the guts. … Frankly, we’re better off without this pantywasit … Enjoy sucking off the government tit for another few decades.

Skeez is just your standard liberal toadstool. He knows deep down that he is a moral and physical coward. He knows he owes his life to men like McChrystal because without them he and his fellow travelers would be devoured by the wolves. His responses should be viewed with both contempt and laughter. He hates America and it’s military for similar reasons. Without both a stain like himself would have perished long ago in a harsher part of the globe.

McChrystal is not that dumb, in allowing this to happen he had to have had a plan in mind. Why not just resign in the midst of all of Obama’s incompetence? I can only surmise that he felt that by being fired Obama would be under more pressure to also fire Holbrooke and Eikenberry. Resigning would have looked like surrender so he fell on his sword.

Far more right than wrong I think. One noticeable difference of opinion… Afganistan per se is NOT winnable. I think Islam has turned down the blind alley of ignorance, chauvanism and the supersensitive macho-male culture of the deeply ashamed. Consequently I conclude that we are in the beginning of a long, low grade but very deadly, attritive war with Islam from one end of their traditional geography to the other (Morocco to China). I think McChrystal senses this intuitively, but doesn’t yet know it consciously (nor, for the most, do the rest of us). I think it better that we consolidate in Iraq, Okinawa, the PI and similar locales; and get our domestic house in order so that we can contain and steer the war as it progresses, and shape the outcome when it finally winds down.

The Emperor paraded in no clothes, and no one dared tell him that that was so.
McChrystal told him through the media of the ultra left and so emphasized the futility of the war effort with the state department influence and rules of engagement limitations, and lack of attention to the theater. McChrystal put Obama into a no win situation by forcing him to fire his own general in his own “good” war.
The possible upside is to renew attention to some sort of victory, but Afghanistan, the graveyard of Empires, is a no-win situation. The orginal mission was already won, to break the Taliban. The nation building and reforming the drug trafficing appears as an endless sinkhole of blood and treasure, with no upside.
McChrystal’s message is that with political handcuffs, no will, and whimps in the White House, that the situation is not good. His fate was that of telling the Emperor that his wardrobe was non-existent.

The guy’s a fraud. A poseur. A punk. He never should have been in that position to begin with,

Oh, for a moment there I thought you were talking about the Commander in Chief. You know, the guy who deliberately picked a general who you describe as being very much like our President in character? Thanks to your insight, we now know why Obama picked McCrystal to not-lead in Afghanistan.

………..but he should have resigned almost a year ago when Obama did not give him the support that was required to fulfill the requirements of the war. All those that died there in Afghanistan are to some large extent a product of Obama setting a exit date.

Actually – he should have resigned the very day The Nitwit in Chief announced his timetable for pulling out of the theater. How does a General fight a war that the CiC has written off?

I agree Afghanistan is unwinnable and our purpose for prosecuting that war unsound – the Russians knew that when they bailed on the Godforsaken piece of crap country. We’ve lost too many fine young men already for no good purpose. Now TheOne tells our enemies, “wait a few more months and you can have it all.” How many more young men will be lost in the coming months while TheOne twiddles his thumbs and plays golf? ONE is one too many, imo.

My belief is McChrystal did this to bring to the publics blind eyes the utter futility of sending more men into the breach for a war TheOne will ultimately retreat from – as all good liberals do.

In Afghanistan the Taliban destroys a Buddha on a mountain side. The U.S. Taliban destroys the health care system, the banking system, the energy producing system, and the military high command. Those Mullas in Washington DC are on a roll.

Great analogy.
Obama and the rest of his gang truly are a wrecking crew.
Let’s hope that the analogy is not a perfect one, though, and that, unlike those magnificent statues, the great American institutions that lie in shambles can still be restored.

Seems as if McChrystal was the wrong man for whatever it is we are trying to do over there. Stan would be the man for an all out Western style dirty get in and get out ass kicking, not this nation building with your hands tied business we are in. He is definitely not a diplomat as the French now know. lol.

Having read Roman History Victor Davis Hansen knows what type of man McChrystal is. He is the Roman General that knows only
one command Victory or Death. Psychologically he is very simply contructed and he could not handle the contradictions and drift of Obama, Biden and Richard Holbrook. To be fighting for life and death on the battlefield one moment and then having to take orders from men for whom everything is soft and negotiable
was too much for him. So he committed suicide via liberal journo-scum reporter.
Anything is better than defeat on the battlefield. If we had a real President McChrystal would never have been put in this position.

It’s simple: McChrystal got too big for his britches.
He’s not the first general who forgot to keep his mouth shut, and he won’t be the last.

Big. Fat. Hairy. Deal. There’s plenty more where HE came from.

The principal reason that out military is so screamingly inefficient and self defeating is that we have twice as many field officers as we really need, and five times as many general and flag officers. This surplus population seeks to justify its existence by building up little private empires, which in turn justify their existence by bedeviling the working soldiers and sailors with an interminable parade of repetitive, duplicative, and just plain needless “standards”, “inspections”, “guidelines” and all the rest : all too susceptible to the politics of the moment, the assorted efflati of squirrelly sociology and leftoid bilge.

We may be looking at the last edition of our military that is capable of fighting for anything ( or allowed to). But let it not be forgotten , if so, that the so-called professionals were willing collaborators in their own demise.

Great point about Ryan Crocker, Dr. Hanson. I never knew he opposed the Iraq war. He was a fine diplomat, and always did very well in appearances before the House and Senate committees. Yet somehow I’d entirely overlooked that. Very good point. He has not at all gotten the credit he’s due.

I have to agree with Rancher. McChrystal had to have known what he was doing, and what was likely to happen as a result. as far as VDH’s “writing a letter” solution, I believe the general tried something like that before, and it didn’t get him anywhere.

but as others have pointed out elsewhere, the important story here is the SUBSTANCE of McChrystal’s comments. Obama really needs to get rid of some of the “clowns” mentioned in the article, James Jones first of all. unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to happen; Obama is, after all, still Obama, and despite his so-called brilliance, he doesn’t seem to have a clue.

There is no win in Afghanistan. The general knew it. He has written about it. This is an undeniable fact. Getting himself fired by the worst prez in history is a good way out. I’m sure there are dozens of companies willing to pay him millions per year to work for them. Staying in the military was one monster fail staring him in the face as he would have had to continue sending good men down the rat hole for nothing. Plus he gets our attention about the very very bad situation over there.

We cant win in Korea
We cant win in Vietnam
We cant win in Iraq
We cant win in Yugoslavia
We cant win in Iran
We cant win in Afghanistan
We cant win on the US Border
we cant win in Europe
Its hopeless, its all over, time to get out.
And on and on and on.
Faced with the US Homefront of the past 60 years..is it any wonder
any military man committed to the ideals of Victory hasnt been driven
to despair? Or is that the point?

Conservatives err by citing all sorts of legitimate reasons for McChrystal to have expressed frustration: sorry — all are irrelevant in terms of his dismissal. We all agree with almost all of them. But they are not the issue.

Sorry Professor, but you are wrong.

McChrystal and his dismissal are the things that are ultimately irrelevant. They are merely a passing incident.

The MOST RELEVANT thing is the incompetence of Obama and his Administration. Never in a million years would McChrystal be able to do one thing to endanger this country. Obama, on the other hand, can almost single-handedly destroy it in a matter of months.

OBAMA is the issue, not McChrystal. Thus, what McChrystal, et al. had to say about the Administration is EXCEEDINGLY RELEVANT.

“And had McChrystal resigned and said them, that would be fine, even admirable.”

And, largely, unheard by the public. Sure, some people would pay attention, but those are the people who tend to keep up on this stuff anyway, and ultimately no significant changes would take place. I think McChrystal wanted to shake up our Afghanistan policy substantially, and to do so, he had to make this stuff very, very public. Best way to do that? Be unbecoming. Be scandalous. Be stupid, become the big story of the week, get fired, but get the message out in a form people are gonna hear about, because otherwise, we’re gonna lose.

I’ve been a civilian soldier for over 38 years. I was activated in 2006 and I’m still on active duty. I’ve always known that the active duty soldiers do not understand civilians, especially civilian leadership. It is mainly because of their culture. Many like Gen McCrystal live in a cocoon. The active duty lifestyle does not provide them with the kind of interaction with civilian leadership that we on the outside take for granted. They may talk the game but when you get behind closed doors, they really don’t understand. Personally, I believe they should spend some time in the national guard as part of their military education. This would give them some experience working with Mayors, state legislators and Governors and help them understand the people they are serving.

Well, as a supporter of Israel, I am not enthusiastic about Petraeus taking center stage again. Petraeus, if you recall, has implicated Israel as the ultimate cause of unrest in that part of the world. On this issue, Obama and Petraeus are in agreement and I wonder if that didn’t play a part in Petraeus’ selection for the job.

One tiny quibble: I find the notion that there’s something untoward or out of the ordinary in an Army officer flipping the bird to a close aide in an informal setting more than a little hard to credit.

Completely agree with the Belisarius analogy. The parallel is eerily remarkable. General Petraeus, with strong support by President Bush, went into Iraq, organized the ‘surge’ and made it work. Belisarius went into Italy and all but restored Roman rule before being launched at Persia.

But now a different President wants General Petraeus to perform Act 2 in Afghanistan. Belisarius tried an Act 2 in Italy, with far less support from Justinian than he had in Act 1, and did not succeed – partly because of non-cooperation from his Roman military colleagues. It was Justinian’s hail-Mary attempt.

General Petraeus is Obama’s. Well, will Petraeus receive the necessary military and civilian resources? Are Holbrooke and Eikenberry to remain, playing their egotistical divisive games? Or is Petraeus a politico-human sacrifice – after enduring the staggering sneers and condescention of MoveOn, and Obama and Hillary in the Senate, in 2007?

Right on. You said it. “We must have only the best”. No writer today understands the reality of our precarious situation here at home and in the world today and explains it better than you. Please run for President in 2012. Your country needs you.

“Right now we must have only the best. A General Mattis at CentCom would do wonders. A Crocker/Petraeus/Matthis team would be like finally getting Grant/Sherman in control. (Yes, I know, we have a verbose Edward Everett, not an insightful A. Lincoln in charge.)”

Does Obama realize that the General’s attitude is but a microcosim of most of the military and civilian view of him ? No respect deserved for this pseudo president. Petraues will eventually get stabbed in the back by this guy and his henchmen – after they take credit for his successes. Business as usual.

I’d have fired him for being stupid. Didn’t McCrystal or any of his hotshot Jedi staff realize that “The Rolling Stone” is not exactly supportive of the military? Couldn’t he conrol his staff or did they merely reflect his own disrespect of the chain-of-command?

OTOH, having to sack HIS own personal choice for command in Afghanistan doesn’t exactly make THE WON look real good. Less than two years in office and THE WON is looking like he’s completely out of his depth. No more just voting “Present”.

McChrystal is a fool. Obama just wants a general to help him win his just war. The politically naïve general allowed a counter-culture reporter into his inner circle, which of course, assumed the lad was totally on the up and up, and proceeded to trash every administration official and diplomat in sight, kind of like military guys always do, them being so arrogant and all.

The President, totally unaware of any discontent in the ranks, and only hearing of this travesty about 48 hours ago, still was able to marshal his noted whirlwind capabilities and assess the situation, touch the 50 or so bases he needs to touch to make a change of this magnitude, prepped his staff, prepped the propaganda division, called General Petraeus to assess his reaction, interviewed the malcontent general, and made a quick and saber-like decision.

Of course, Conservatives like our esteemed VDH have lined up in lock-step behind the gallant young president, who, at last, is showing some backbone, and doing exactly what conservatives have been insisting since the dissention in the ranks became public. There is such a thing as a chain of command, you know, and all good conservatives support the CIC 100%, even if we dislike his policies. We ARE honorable people, and we DO set aside our partisan differences, just like our gallant young president, in a matter such as this.

In a nutshell, McChrystal’s a naïve idiot and the nascently decisive Obama is focused like a laser on winning in Afghanistan.

Now, totally coincidentally, General Petraeus just happens to be grounded for the 2012 election. A man of that caliber will not abandon a mission until it’s complete. And also totally coincidentally, Gen Petraeus will be the man who will take the fall for Afghanistan, should that effort fail, which it is oh, about 99% certain to do. Sadly, his reputation and popularity is likely to be severely damaged in the inevitable press firestorm about the failure, after the gallant President has done everything he possibly could do to make it a success. Alas, sometimes, unfortunate events like that do occur.

But I also think there is perhaps a wee tiny chance that the cabal had something to do with the activities of the last few days, and at least an infinitesimal chance that they planned the whole thing, and are now thoroughly enjoying themselves as the Pavlov dogs like VDH fall for the scam hook line and sinker.

“… Conservatives like our esteemed VDH have lined up in lock-step behind the gallant young president…”

Where in the hell did that come from? Agreeing that the President had no choice but fire McChrystal is not equivalent to “lining up in lock-step” behind Obama (who never is gallant). Your claim is worse than absurd, it is libelous. You would be hard-pressed to find any other political commentator who has slammed Obama for his innumerable failings as much as Dr. Hanson.

Your comments about General Petraeus being “grounded” for the 2012 election are groundless. There is no evidence that General Petraeus has political ambitions, and, even if he did, running against the President who served as his Commander-in-Chief would be impossible for an honorable general.

“libelous” wow. Perhaps you should go fluff VDH’s pillow. And yes, the generally insightful VDH has certainly lined up with 99.9% of the rest of the consrvative press in swallowing, hook line and sinker, the msm’s version of this story. We certainly can trust them to be objective about military matters, can’t we?

Also, btw, I’m hardly the only person to suggest the Moron was removing Petreaus as a political rival. But you’re right, I shouldn’t speculate, since all the facts are known. Case closed.

Interesting post and great comments,but I think that maybe a few of the people commenting here are complicating this story and letting their imagination run wild.It’s cut and dried really,the general said some things that he shouldn’t have said ,and foolishly said these things around an ambitious leftist,who of course took it straight to the President.It’s easier for me,and it’s painful to say it because I respect and admire our fighting men and women, to believe that what happened here was more an act of stupidity than an act of noble sacrifice.People who are quite brilliant sometimes do and say some things that are shocking in that regard.I hate that this good man and fine soldier has been brought down in this way,but the president did what had to be done.T.

Reconsider your assumptions if you believe a 4-star with a SOCOM career at every level snapped or blundered. Don’t fight the last war.

Doubts about officers’ training in how to deal with the media and political intrusion into the chain of command are preposterous. West Point plebes, to use a specific example, know the routine like a baby knows how to be fed long before CNN televised the Gulf War live. GEN Powell was of a different breed, which his subsequent career, and the inevitable Gulf War II, have proved.

So be it, some are better than others, but do not place the leftist prejudice of the ignorant soldier on GEN McChrystal.

Manipulating our historic first Islamic apostate president with a Rolling Stone propagandist is preliminary child’s play in the greater reestablishment of order in war zones foreign and domestic.

Good commentary, VDH. We get our best guy into Afghanistan to give it our best shot and hope for the best, but it’s hard to see Afghan culture changing quickly enough. Eventually, maybe all the newly discovered mineral resources will help change/civilize them, but how many of our guys do we have to lose first?

We’d better keep building more and more sophisticated drones. No, they aren’t boots on the ground, but they don’t come home in caskets, either.

This is a very good article, Mr Hanson. It is the most sensible commentary on the McChrystal incident that I have seen anywhere. I feel sorry for General Petraeus because he has a dangerous fool for a Commander in Chief.

From Newsweek interview with Hastings (author of Rolling Stone article:
[Frankly, VDH's characterization of the reporter as a "creep" seems unwarranted and infra dig].

Can you explain how the article came about—what was the pitching and reporting process?
I was Baghdad correspondent for NEWSWEEK for two years, and I left the magazine after covering the elections. I wrote a piece for GQ before Obama took office that raised some serious questions about the direction we were taking in Afghanistan. So it was something I wanted to be writing about. I saw General McChrystal and his new strategy as a way to look at our Afghan policy to see if it’s working or if it’s a totally insane enterprise. I met with editors at Rolling Stone, they seemed into the idea, so I e-mailed McChrystal’s people. I didn’t think I was going to get any access at all. It’s one of those strange journalistic twists. They said yes, come on over to Paris to spend a couple days with us.

…
One of the most vivid scenes in the stories comes when you are out with the general, his wife, and his team for a night on the town in Paris. His team is entirely forthright with you, did that surprise you?
Well, they were getting hammered, I don’t know at that moment if they were being the most forthright. Of course it was surprising. A lot of the reporting that is getting most of the attention happened right away in the first few days in Paris. So I was surprised—because they didn’t know me.

It was always clear that you were a reporter and you were, in essence, on the record? And more, the entire article was thoroughly fact-checked, yes?
Yes. It was crystal clear to me, and I was walking around with a tape recorder and a notepad in my hand three-quarters of the time. I didn’t have the Matt Drudge press hat on, but everything short of that it was pretty obvious I was a reporter writing a profile of the general for Rolling Stone. It was always very clear.

Fell on his sword. Can’t imagine McChrystal didn’t know what the consequences would be, considering what he and his staff said. Obama had no choice but to can him, and…

Petraeus was the only choice Obama had as a replacement. A forced play like this always makes me wonder that someone behind the scenes is unhappy and wants a change. What do we get – besides Petraeus back in direct charge of a faltering war effort? Per VDH:

“Obama cuts out the withdrawal talk, keeps his differences with Karzai private, gives Petraeus free rein, and brings in someone like Crocker…”

There’s an “if” before that line, but hopefully Petraeus has already taken care of the details. He must have been given some assurance that he’ll have the in-country team he wants. And no more talk of withdrawal for the near future.

When Obama gets canned by the American public, we can rehabilitate McChrystal’s reputation. He took one for the cause.

Wow, so the surge worked heh, have you read the news from Iraq lately? Supposedly “democratic” elections have resulted in no functioning legislature or executive branch, the capital city has two hours of electricity a day, the Sunni “allies”, who were only allies as long as we paid them money, are being assassinated on a weekly basis, the government workers that do go to their offices are almost as corrupt as their Afghani counterparts. The surge smeared a thin and very temporary veneer of order over Iraq, just long enough for the military and the politicians to declare victory and get us the hell out of there. It is not a functioning democracy and the civil war is ongoing and becoming hotter. The point of the Afghan “surge” is exactly the same, smear a veneer of order over the whole mess so we can the get the hell out of there. There is no winning in Afghanistan, there is only leaving after we have erected a facade of success, at great cost in blood and treasure.

Merely another Leftist engaged in swimming DeNile. I have a feeling that just as there were isolated Japanese soldiers still fighting WWII in the 1970s because they were ignorant of Japan’s defeat so it is that the 2030s will see isolated leftists going around desperately denying that there was an American victory in Iraq thanks to President Bush.

The difference is that those Japanese soldiers had physical isolation from the world at large through no fault of their own as the reason for that while the leftists will have only the fact that they isolated themselves from knowledge as the reason for what they do in the 2030s. So much for the Left! ^_~

For a couple years I went with Bush’s war thinking it was about building forward bases and putting a ‘beachhead’ into central Asia. Now it looks like it was just about war profiteering and Bush was a witless tool. Nation building indeed. The very thing he campaigned against.

Using 20/20 hindsight both the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures look outrageously insane. From every measure. We did a better job in Viet Nam. This nation has no business in foreign wars. We refuse to do what needs doing and do not have the will to win them. Or the finances.

Bush literally pushed 20% of the population from the center to the Left. We have Obama because of him. It makes me very sad to know my daughter and grandson will live in socialist slavery and chaos.

One of the few instances where VDH scratches the surface rather than cut to the heart. It is impossible that General McCrystal wandered into this mess. It is impossible that General McCrystal did not appreciate the implications of what he and his staff said to rolling stone. It is unlikely that this man who eats once/day and sleeps 4 hrs/day has insubordinated the civilian command for mere self interest. I believe that Generals McCrystal and Petreaus have just embarked on a risky strategy which they believe is the only way to win this war. General McCrystal’s goals are to save the honor of the United States, save his troops lives and win this war. I will be fascinated to watch these strategically brilliant men execute their plan. General Petreaus fainted last week due to the moral stain, the challenge to his honor which this desperate strategy has required. I suspect the great patriot Micheal Yon has been helping pave the way.

skeeziks, your post is contemptible. You accuse General McCrystal of having no honor, no code, no sense of duty?? The man has risked his neck in battle since Vietnam, literally more times than you can count. What have you done to serve your nation? You wrote, “The guy’s a fraud. A poseur. A punk.” No, you are. You prove that ingratitude is among the ugliest and most immature of emotions. You are free today because of the exertions of better men than yourself, yet you are too foolish and arrogant to know it. Pathetic.

Dr. Hanson, I am a tremendous fan of your work, but take issue with your conclusions. You and other commentators have been used by the Obama administration, and are now circling the wagons in defense of an illegitimate, if not outright treasonous, adminstration. General McCrystal’s remarks were in no way “conduct unbecoming” or similar. Since when does “Rolling Stone” qualify as an impartial source, upon which to base such serious accusations? In saner times, this story would have been laughed right out of town, if for no other reason than the history of that publication of doing partisan hatchet jobs on our armed forces. When did it become OK for a bunch of aging hippies and drug addicts to pass judgment on a man such as McCrystal? What ever happened to getting a fair hearing? Apparently, all that matters these days is spin, so now an honorable man is to be thrown to the wolves.

I would not put it past Obama and company, masters of dirty tricks that they are, to have staged this whole affair to topple McCrystal and install a potential rival in a place where they can keep an eye on him, while forcing an able general to “hitch his wagon” to the adminstration.

Bender (#24), I agree with your analysis, “McChrystal and his dismissal are the things that are ultimately irrelevant. They are merely a passing incident. The MOST RELEVANT thing is the incompetence of Obama and his Administration. Never in a million years would McChrystal be able to do one thing to endanger this country. Obama, on the other hand, can almost single-handedly destroy it in a matter of months.
OBAMA is the issue, not McChrystal. Thus, what McChrystal, et al. had to say about the Administration is EXCEEDINGLY RELEVANT.”

Professor Hanson, the civilian leadership (so-called) has been unworthy of our brave soldiers for literally years, and now the crisis of legitimacy may be coming to a head. As the British put it during WWI, “lions being led by asses.” Many people in the military know that Obama is a fraud, a poseur unfit to lead them. All of the checks and balances put in place by the Founding Fathers to prevent the usurption of the Oval Office have been ignored or bypassed and now an imposter sits in the CIC’s chair, with access to the most powerful arsenal in human history. The national parties, Congress, and the Supreme Court have all abrogated their duty to assure that the President is eligible to lead the nation and armed forces, without qualification. ACORN committed open election fraud, and no one did anything. Hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Obama’s coffers, much of it in the form of illegal overseas political donations, and nothing was done. Obama’s origins remain murky, and he has refused to prove his provenance. Since ascending to office, he has committed numerous acts which are grounds for impeachment, many of which are – to be polite – extralegal if not fully illegal. Nothing is being done. The terrible consequence of all of these things, these unchallenged ursurptions of the office of POTUS, is that our warriors are being asked to risk their lives by a man whose orders may not even be valid. Bluntly put, because our gutless and corrupt civilian political class failed in its duties, young people in uniform may die. McCrystal knows this, and because he is a real leader who cares about his troops, he isn’t happy about it. It speaks well for him.

The proper course of action by the Joint Chiefs, upon Obama’s “winning” of the election, should have been to refuse orders from the alleged CIC until he proved his legitimacy. If necessary, they should have resigned en mass, rather than take orders from him, and taken their lumps in courts martial just as their gutsy and very principled colleague Colonel Terry Lakin, M.D., has done. Perhaps had the JCS done that, it might have shamed Congress into taking action to resolve this constitutional crisis. But now that the political generals have tainted themselves with Obama’s brush, they will have a much tougher time getting the dirt off of themselves. Obama knows this, and will exploit it.

Rightly, we have a very strong tradition of civilian control of the military – but this, too, has its limits, both practical and theoretical. Our founders did not envision a day when such civilian leadership of such incompetence would command our armed forces, nor did they envision weapons as powerful as those commanded by a 21st century chief executive. Surely, this combination would have troubled them immensely, if not inspired outright fear for the continued safety of our nation. Second, even though leadership of the military is vested in civilians, the military must retain the right to question unlawful orders, or orders given by questionable sources of authority. Officers swear to defend the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic, but if they are denied the means of doing so by their civilian leaders, this promise is an empty one. If any of our senior officers believe Obama is unfit to lead the armed forces, and have evidence of it, they should take their case to the American people. If they do not, they are violating their most sacred duty. We are, after all, supposed to be a nation of laws, not a nation of men. No one, least of all Obama, is supposed to be above the law.

Impeachment proceedings should have been started months ago, and cannot happen soon enough. That they have not is disturbing evidence indeed that many of our fellow citizens and elected representatives place their political aspirations and careers above the interests of the nation.

Succinct. Bravissimo. You might have added that since the WW II after teh Nuremburg Trials, it became the law that military personnel MUST disobey unlawful orders. Has this changed or did I misunderstand?

God how I love people with the courage to state the obvious truth in this new world where lies and hyperbole rule the day. Thank you for your well considered comment. Just maybe it will penetrate some of the mush filled skulls of some of those who seem to spend all their waking hours coming up with nonsense to rebut the well reasoned articles by Doctor Victor Davis Hanson here at PJ Media.

Can you give me a name of one who would be a better President of the United states than Doctor Hanson come 2012. Why not hop aboard my bandwagon? If there is any hope to preserve the U.S. Constitution, it will require such a courageous, brilliant and patriotic American as he obviously is. If you doubt me, check out some of his presentations on UTUBE and CSPAN. He is a giant in a land of midgits, the Gulliver of this day.

Even better, he is not a bought and paid for corrupt political hack who has spent a lifetime seeking the ultime power rush. He is a man of the people who demonstrates almost daily that common sense to some small degree still exists in this land of gimmee gimmee gimmee, I’m entitled.

Sorry, Georgiaboy, but when our military officers start interfering with civilian politics like that then we are on the road to becoming a banana republic. It’s a small step from a group of generals deciding not to obey civilian orders to a group of generals deciding that the military can run the country better than the civilians. Very tempting, but I don’t think we want to go in that direction. Generals who have a problem with the Commander in Chief should resign and write books about it – not engage in little plots to remove him from office

My question is this: why swear fealty to someone could not spell integrity even when the first 8 letters are spotted to him?

Those who know war need to either launch a coup against the reprobates, scoundrels and similar ilk inside the Beltway that you justly demonize, or set up a government in exile so that governments who are being treated worse by this administration than the previous one, that they can deal with Americans who actually demonstrate broadmindedness. Instead of the motley crew who talk about it.

Interesting that ObAmA calls up the Constitution, correctly in my view. But more interesting is the selectiveness of this support. Congress and Court are also pledged to UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Constitution. We have seen very little of that in the past half century from either political party.both of which abrogated when in their interest the Rights of the American People protected by that Legal Foundation. Lawyers, so they interpret the meanings of the words in that Document. The example you give of the essentially unknown provenance of this Chief Executive, without requirement from Congress OR Court to present proof. evidence of his described past DESPITE the clear requirement in the Constitution of natural born citizenship. NEVEr AMENDED. It seems this Chief Executive has “been taken at his word”. At the very least an unusual undertaking.We also have the present incumbent, reputed a constitutional scholar who, despite a freely taken oath on accepting the Presidency of the USA,to UPHOLD AND DEFEND the Constitution, on record as deeming that Constitution “defective” and “flawed”. And a member of Congress, of his “Democratic” Party, Rep Phil Hare of Illinois, “We, in the Congress do not care about the Constitution” What then are we, the “ordinary” citizens to understand about the Constitution of the USA? Merely a document of no more than historical interest, a museum piece of no relevance in 21st century America? To be called on ONLY
WHEN needed for reprimand of recalcitrant “underlings”?

1. There is a problem with impeachment. How can a holder of an office, if that office has been gained by unlawful means, be impeached? That Obama “won” election is not at issue. What is. is whether or not he was eligible to be put forth for election as having met all Constitutional Requirements. THAT is the BASIC QUESTION, NOT his lack of leadership, or his misunderstanding of the limits of the Office of the Presidency.But whether he holds the office in compliance with the Law of the USA, a COUNTRY of LAW NOT OF MEN. And whether the citizens of the USA, through their elected “representatives” in Congress and Court desire compliance with the LAW / their Constitution, EVEN among the highest ranking “officers” of the nation.
2. didn’t the Nuremburg Tribunals after WW II resolve that soldiers/commanders obeying unlawful orders were culpable in law. Obedience to orders was not a defense?

“The proper course of action by the Joint Chiefs, upon Obama’s “winning” of the election, should have been to refuse orders from the alleged CIC until he proved his legitimacy.”

Sorry, but the real world isn’t populated by little green plastic soldiers . . . I know, your favorite is the guy with the machine gun in the Jeep. Hey, good news, I hear they’re coming out with a little green plastic Orly Taitz! At least I think it’s her. I can’t be sure because you can’t see her face from behind. Would you like to pre-order?

[Re-]heard Sen Obama’s unflattering grilling of Petraeus last night. The abusive-husband syndrome that this Prez emanates is unbecoming of his position.

There are bound to be countless troubles (insubordination, senseless death of our men, never-ending blind mission-creep…) when we – as a headless culture – won’t ID the enemy, won’t actually declare our wars, and refuse to fight them to win (it was doomed from microsecond 1: dropping bombs from one plane and food from another).

I heard Leonard Peikoff say something like: there is only one kind of war I can support – all-out-war. I completely agree.

I don’t know. But I do know that I was becoming very concerned with his “heroic restraint” strategy. Increasingly concerned, in fact, as April 2011 approached, the month my son is scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan with his Ohio Army National Guard unit.

Plus, this ol’ vet understands the chain of command. B*tching and whining is part of military life, but it doesn’t go past the gate. Plus, when you’re given a lawful order then you salute smartly, suck it up and go get it down OR you put in your papers and hit the street.

McChrystal looked for this.
Without the men and the means to win in Afghanistan, resigning would accomplish nothing.
He could have asked for more men and support and when denied, resign. He would have not obtained them. His successor would had not obtained them, either.
Obama and his administration would stick to “denied” and the war would draw dawn until it would become a not winnable mess.

Forcing Obama to fire him change the terms of the question. Petraeus is the third general in command in Afghanistan under Obama (in less than two years). There can not be a fourth, because a fourth general imply that Obama is unfit to be CiC as is unable to select his men and the failure in Afghanistan is all his to own.

To be forced to ask Petreus to take the direct command in Afghanistan is a sign that no one else was willing or available or fit to the job. This give Petreus a big leverage on what he can ask and obtain and freedom to act as he think is fit.

Generals know that to win the war sometimes there is the need to combat a battle where you will be tactically defeated. But it often happen that the winning enemy receive more lasting damage than the losing side.

I still have not wrapped my mind around these events. This was not rational behavior on the part of McChrystal, but still within the realm of a warrior king. To dismiss McChrystal as stupid is to miss the point. It could be a way to promote the war effort, but I doubt it.

I am more distracted by comparing McChrystal and Obama, with McClellan and Lincoln. This is possible, but something is missing. I am more inclined to compare McChrystal with Patton and compare Obama to Eisenhower or Roosevelt. In this comparison, Obama is the lightweight.

We’ve never had a military coup or putsch in this country, but this event seems more in keeping with laying the groundwork for such an act, whether it was intentional or not. I don’t think we have heard the last of McChrystal. There could become a time when we will all compare McChrystal to Julius Caesar, but we will be too busy protecting our personal assets instead of talking about McChrystals Rubicon.

Not only did McChrystal vote for Obama, but in his operations offices in Afghanistan, he had a permanent ban on Fox News appearing on any TV sets.

McChrystal is a fine officer and a warrior, and his commitment is not lacking or in question. But he IS a liberal, big time. Obama did not fear him politically, and won’t fear him now that retirement has come. McChrystal will not be a Fox News contributor, and he will not write a tell-all book. He’s on Obama’s side even if he doesn’t fully respect Obama. It’s ideological.

There is no question but that Gen. McChyrstal had to go. A soldier, and particularly a top command officer, simply cannot in any way shape or form publicly criticize his chief in this way and continue to be retained. Whatever his motivations for his remarks (and no doubt his frustrations are deep) he brought this on himself and could not expect anything else. It is facinating that the administration is now installing Gen. Petraeus in this command and everyone is just fine with it. Wasn’t it just the other day that “General Betray-Us” was the poster child for the incompetence of the Bush years?

But they all hang on what the media says – so McChrystal uses the most effective comm technology at his disposal – The Rolling Stone.

Was firing him wrong? We’ll see. A real leader would have taken a few moments to understand why a 4 star general needed to go through the Rolling Stone to get a message out, and taken into consideration how the US Armed Forces views General Mac (82nd Airborne, Special Forces, Ranger, Special Operations Command, Director of Joint Chiefs, Commander in Afghanistan).

The military already doesn’t like Obama, although I’m sure there’s anecdotal evidence of a few uniformed troops/marines liking him. Just watch his engagements with the troops vs George W. Bush’s engagements. This isn’t going to help.

I have to say I agree. McCrystal has to know his appointment is one of a political nature. It means he has to kiss ass and regurgitate PC rhetoric and Marxist dogma on demand, just as general orders are among soldiers. He has to send soldiers to die for political self aggrandizement of politicians and the subjugation of Americans to political whims. That is his job. It’s his sworn duty. As a political pawn and tool of Marxist propaganda he must sacrifice his own soul, opinions and best sense for the blood and body bags that politicians MUST have to retain their power.

Look, McCrystal was Obama’s appointment. Petraeus was a black sheep in the views of the left, remember the General ‘betray us’ crap that came out during the Bush administration? Now he’s a hero? Please! This is hypocritical political crap DESIGNED to promote Marxist dogmatic protocols and nothing more.

Gen. McChrystal trusting a Rolling Stone reporter so much that he would say and do such things with them in the room is mind boggling indeed.

Was this recklessness? Cluelessness? Arrogance (as some are charging)? Something else? Maybe he in fact trusted them to hear him out, no matter how unpleasant (and inappropriate) his views are? Maybe he believed it was OK to be who he was?

I personally feel more comfortable with people who act the same in my presence and behind my back. In an age where PR means everything, it creates a culture of duplicity. Do we really want our military leaders to be professional liars?

I agree that the General had to go–and I’m sad to conclude that. I admire him, in the sense that I admire Patton. Wouldn’t want him over for dinner, glad he’s on my side, and the side of my ancestors back to Salamis. Obama obviously thought highly of him. Oh, a few hundred days ago.

At the same time, the snarky, divisive hatchet job that RS did on McChrystal is one of the worst examples of corporate media assassination of a public figure I’ve seen in my life. And I’m a liberal. I’m sick of this sort of liberal mindset.

We’ve got an ineffectual leader and a hyena pack mass media whipping up people to mass irrationality and reactivity. It would have been far more constructive for us all for the RS reporter to write his story from a reflective position. Leaving room for face saving. But as usual the corporate mass media have everyone by the short hairs. Who oversees them? Nobody. And they cloak themselves in the First Amendment.

Spot on, Professor. Disagreeing with the president or being discouraged by his character and methods — those are one thing. But turning yourself into a discipline problem helps nothing. And that’s what McChrystal did. It has saddened me deeply to see it. Anyone who has had a military career knows there is only one professional military opinion about what happened here. McChrystal screwed up.

Afghanistan is still Obama’s to lose, however. Not even Petraeus is good enough to salvage Obama’s current approach. The approach has to change — and not just the July 2011 deadline, but the bizarre, faceless ineffectiveness of the senior diplomats and advisors who are achieving nothing against the array of threats to the impending surge. Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China — all have interests that clash with ours in Central Asia. We aren’t acting in a vacuum there, but in a cesspool of deviously shifting alignments, surrounded by unreliable partners and a rogue’s gallery of bad actors who want to give us a black eye. India’s patience with our leadership, in the AfPak dynamic that has such an effect on her border security, isn’t endless either. There are too many things that are out of Petraeus’ hands; he is not a sufficient condition to guarantee success.

Obama has reacted too reflexively to the loss of his hand-picked general. McChrystal’s termination was not foreseen. I do not believe the decision to choose Petraeus will turn out well, but there is always ‘hope’.

Obama needs someone more like himself to manage the war effectively. Petraeus and Obama are not cut of the same cloth, and if they are unable to connect, it could result in a less effective prosecution of the war. McChrystal was no renegade, and despite his ‘appreciation’ for Obama, he somehow found a way to compromise himself in a way that was both humiliating and denigrating. Petraeus may be wiser, but he is in the same environment that led to McChrystal’s failure.

These recent events make me more skeptical that Obama has a winning mentality when it comes to war. When faced with a similar situation in the Sotomayor confirmation, Obama chose to explain the embarrassing ‘wise latina’ comments. In this case, Obama simply glossed over the content of McChrystal’s comments. Obama must flush out his inconsistent treatment of military and civilian domains, but I think he does not have the intention to do so.

The President has created an impossible situation for himself but more importantly
for the United States. He has committed more troops to Afghanistan, but with
the accompanying statement that they will be withdrawn next year. Afghanistan
is not Iraq. The “Surge” will not work in Afghanistan because of Iran. U S
servicement will die in vain. And this will lead to another “Vietnam” because no
soldier, no matter how loyal, will willingly expose himself to death or serious
injury unless there is a clear plan showing capability to attain victory, a
true victory, not one the President or his lackies declare.

The canary in the mine does not know what its impact is concerning purpose. This Rolling Stone “thing” needed to happen. It shows who Rolling Stone is, it shows what is happening to the military under BHO. It hangs out J. Biden for what everyone else has been saying about him and it needed to happen. The BHO’s in the greater context of America and the Military are very destructive and dangerous. This infighting and lack of respect is a needed display of the mess that BHO and his idiots are creating that will not easily be fixed.